Yearly Archives: 2008

The role of British mining companies in conflict and the violation of human rights

Posted on by

Rio Tinto says: “Wherever we work, we are committed to minimizing the environmental effects of our activities and to ensuring that local communities benefit as much as possible from having Rio Tinto as a neighbour.” Leigh Clifford, Rio Tinto Chief Executive, 2000-07145

Rio Tinto does: The Grasberg mine in West Papua, Indonesia has been probably the most heavily criticized mine in the world in recent years, featuring as the subject of a series of revealing media reports. The mine is a joint venture between Rio Tinto and US corporation Freeport-McMoRan, and represents the largest gold deposit and third largest copper deposit in the world. It is protected by Indonesian military and police forces involved in well documented human rights violations in suppressing West Papua’s independence movement.

The conflict in West Papua has caused over 100,000 deaths over the past decades. Serious human rights violations have occurred near the mine, and the companies have regularly been accused of complicity in them owing to their reliance on the military and police to provide security for company operations.

Click here to read about Rio Tinto’s human rights violations

Coaster Brook Trout Comment Period Reopened

Posted on by

[Comment period closed]

SEPTEMBER 8, 2008 Deadline!

The US Fish and Wildlife Service is requesting public input regarding the coaster brook trout (Salvelinus fontinalis) for their endangered species status review. The information you submit can include agency reports and other collections of scientific data. The USFS is not required to hold public hearings on a species status review, but is providing a new comment period to afford the public an additional opportunity to provide information or submit any remarks that would otherwise have been presented at a public hearing.

The submissions cannot merely state support for or opposition to the action under consideration without providing supporting information. The USFS makes its determination based on the best scientific and commercial data available.

Submit comments via website:
Click here to submit comments electronically and your entire submission will be posted on the website.

Submit comments via hardcopy (letter):
Public Comments Processing
Attn(FWS-R3-ES-2008-0030)
Division of Policy and Directives Management
US Fish and Wildlife Service
4401 N. Fairfax Drive Suite 222
Arlington, VA 22203

Faxes or emails will not be accepted.

The entire USFS announcement is as follows:

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 90-Day Finding on a Petition To List the U.S. Population of Coaster Brook Trout (Salvelinus fontinalis) as Endangered

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), correct and reopen the comment period for the March 20, 2008, 90-day finding on a petition to list the U.S. population of coaster brook trout.

DATES: We will consider information received or postmarked on or before September 8, 2008.

ADDRESSES: You may submit information by one of the following methods:

  • Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
  • U.S. mail or hand-delivery: Public Comments Processing, Attn: [FWS-R3-ES-2008-0030]; Division of Policy and Directives Management; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; 4401 N. Fairfax Drive, Suite 222; Arlington, VA 22203.

We will not accept e-mail or faxes. We will post all information received at http://www.regulations.gov. This generally means that we will post any personal information you provide us (see the Information Solicited section below for more details).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Jessica Hogrefe, East Lansing Field Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2651 Coolidge Road–Suite 101, East Lansing, MI 48823-6316; telephone 517-351-5467; facsimile 517-351-1443. If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD), call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at (800) 877-8339.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On March 20, 2008, the Service published in the Federal Register a notice of 90-day petition finding and initiation of status review concerning the petition to list as endangered a population of brook trout (Salvelinus fontinalis) known as coaster brook trout throughout its known historical range in the conterminous United States (73 FR 14950). In the DATES section of that document, we solicited requests for public hearings and established a date by which we would receive such requests.This part of the notice was printed in error and we will not hold public hearings for this 90-day finding. Section 4(b)(5) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), states, “With respect to any regulation proposed by the Secretary to implement a determination, designation, or revision referred to in subsection (a)(1) or (3) [proposed or final rule to list a species as endangered or threatened, or proposed or final rule to designate any habitat of such species to be ritical habitat], the Secretary shall * * * promptly hold one public hearing on the proposed regulation if any person files a request for such a hearing within 45 days after the date of publication of general notice.” Notices of 90-day findings on petitions to list species are not proposed regulations. The Service does not generally hold public hearings for nonrulemaking findings, and will not hold any public hearings regarding the coaster brook trout 90-day finding. For a 90-day finding, we request information from the public that improves our understanding of the status of the species. This information typically includes agency reports and other collections of empirical data that is best gathered in the form of written comments. If, in the future, we publish a proposed rule for this species (e.g., a proposed listing), we will allow the public an opportunity to request a public hearing at that time.

Information Solicited

We are, however, providing a new comment period with respect to the 90-day finding to afford the public an additional opportunity to provide us information for our status review or submit any remarks that would otherwise have been presented at a public hearing. We have also contacted directly the persons who requested a hearing to advise them of this additional opportunity to submit information. Please note that submissions merely stating support for or opposition to the action under consideration without providing supporting information, although noted, will not be considered in making a determination, because section 4(b)(1)(A) of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) directs that determinations as to whether any species is a threatened or endangered species shall be made “solely on the basis of the best scientific and commercial data available.” At the conclusion of the status review, we will determine whether listing is warranted, not warranted, or warranted but precluded. You may submit your information concerning this status review by one of the methods listed in the ADDRESSES section. We will not consider submissions sent by e-mail or fax or to an address not listed in the ADDRESSES section. If you submit information via http://www.regulations.gov, your entire submission–including any personal identifying information–will be posted on the Web site. If your submission is made via a hardcopy that includes personal identifying information, you may request at the top of your document that we withhold this personal identifying information from public review. However, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so. We will post all hardcopy submissions on http://www.regulations.gov. Information and materials we receive will be available for public inspection on http://www.regulations.gov, or by appointment, during normal business hours, at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, East Lansing Field Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).

[[Page 45936]]

Authority: This action is authorized by the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).

Dated: July 31, 2008. H. Dale Hall, Director, Fish and Wildlife Service.

[FR Doc. E8-18206 Filed 8-6-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310-55-P

Protect the Earth a Success: New Photos Added

Posted on by

A Protect the Earth Summit sponsored by Yellow Dog Summer, Keepers of the Water, and Students Against Sulfide Mining was held this weekend, August 2 and 3. The summit began with workshops and a rally and culminated with a walk to Eagle Rock on the Yellow Dog Plains, accompanied by blueberry picking. Nearly 140 citizens from Upper and Lower Michigan, Wisconsin, Minnesota, and Ontario attended the walk to Eagle Rock.

“This weekend’s Earth Summit marked a turning point for the movement to protect our land and water from metallic sulfide and uranium mining. Wisconsin stopped metallic sulfide mining, and the power of that movement was realized in the diversity and unity of the local people, and diversity and unity are exactly what Protect the Earth gatherings are all about. Protect the Earth proved that dangerous mining is not a done deal in the UP, Minnesota or anywhere, as long as communities are willing to work together.” Gabriel Caplett (Yellow Dog Summer).

Click here to read Gabriel’s letter to the editor in the Marquette Mining Journal

Protect the Earth Summit August 2 and 3

Posted on by

Protect the Earth Summit August 2 and 3

Help Stop Metallic Sulfide and Uranium Mining

Keepers of the Water, Yellowdog Summer, and Students Against Sulfide Mining are organizing a Protect the Earth Summit for August 2 and 3 to bring communities together throughout the Great Lakes Region and the Midwest that are concerned about metallic sulfide and uranium mining. We all share and depend on clean land, air and water for our survival and must work together to protect the health of our communitties and ecosystems. Please join us for free workshops, speakers, music, food, dance, and a walk to Eagle Rock.

Protect the Earth Summit Program

Local Faith Leader’s Article Highlighted in The Christian Century Magazine

Posted on by
Inland drilling
A debate over mining in Upper Michigan
by Jon Magnuson
On the southern shore of Lake Superior, rugged edges of deep green forest merge with cliffs of sandstone and million-year-old granite to mark the northern boundary of Powell Township. For most Michigan citizens, this remains a remote, forgotten corner of the Upper Peninsula, an economically depressed region that economists often call America’s “second Appalachia.” For those who live here, it has become a battleground between an international mining company and a patchwork coalition of residents, fisherfolk, church leaders, environmentalists and an Indian tribe.Read More…

Headwaters are no place for toxic new mining

Posted on by

Eric Hansen is the author of “Hiking Michigan’s Upper Peninsula” and “Hiking Wisconsin”.  His recent op-ed entitled, “Headwaters are no place for toxic new mining” was recently published in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel.  We encourage you to write to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel and thank them for covering the issue… perhaps with a little encouragement they will cover the issue even further.

Following, are a few lines from Eric’s op-ed…

“Take a moment to think about Michigan’s Upper Peninsula and the nearby patches of Wisconsin, Lake Superior and Lake Michigan that border it. Picture the sparkling waterfalls, blueberries, brook trout and wave-washed shores there — the multitude of reasons so many think of this as God’s Country.

Thing is, change is in the air — and there’s a fair chance that it won’t be a good thing for the unspoiled waters of the U.P. — or for our water quality here, downstream, in Wisconsin.

New proposals for mining in the U.P. involve a method — metallic sulfide mining — known for its record of toxic water pollution.”

click here to read the op-ed

Rio Tinto Copper’s CEO Bret Clayton Sneaks through Town

Posted on by

Promises Broken

Thursday July 24, 2008

In April, local community members attended Rio Tinto’s Annual General Meeting where Chief Executive Bret Clayton (Rio Tinto Copper, London) agreed to hold a public meeting with the mine opposition back in the states.

However, on Wednesday July 24th Bret Clayton snubbed the community as he visited Michigan’s Upper Peninsula. Clayton instead only took time to meet with the Lake Superior Community Partnership and the Marquette County Ambassadors.

“Rio Tinto’s decision not to meet with anyone knowledgeable about the proposed mine seems obviously calculated as nothing more than a PR opportunity,” said Michelle Halley, an attorney with the National Wildlife Federation. “The company opted to meet with hand-picked community members who have been fed the sugar-coated version of the project from Kennecott since its inception.

But ironically, Clayton frequently uttered the word “community” throughout his presentation.

At the meeting Clayton stated, “. . . we want to come into communities . . . We’re very excited about the opportunity that we have to invest in the Upper Peninsula here in the region and be a part of your community . . . we want to be welcomed into communities because they recognize that we are a company that you want to work with and that will share values with you, that will listen and work with you”.

Clayton further stated “community engagement is very important and we think we’ve done a good job of that.” According to Clayton, Rio Tinto is “working to always improve its reputation by “doing things to the highest standard.”

A good job and high standard? Considering Bret Clayton didn’t even take 5 minutes to visit with the community while in the Upper Peninsula, he sure is laying his “community” involvement on pretty thick.

Public relations 101 for Mr. Clayton: if you want to be welcomed into a community, you probably shouldn’t ignore us, dodging opposition to your project won’t make it go away. In fact, how can we trust Rio Tinto and Kennecott to protect our freshwater resources if they can’t even keep a simple promise to meet with us?

Poor treatment of local communities is bad for business.

We called Kennecott today to request a meeting with Bret Clayton, but Mr. Bret “Sneaky” Clayton had already disappeared back to London.

Say “No” to Great Lakes Cargo Dumping

Posted on by

Attend a meeting in Duluth or Cleveland or send written comments before July 22

The U.S. Coast Guard released a draft Environmental Impact Statement for the rulemaking: “Dry Residue Discharges in the Great Lakes”. In this rulemaking the Coast Guard proposes to deviate from federal and international laws and permit the dumping of cargo- such as limestone, iron ore, coal, and grain- from commercial vessels into the Great Lakes.

The public can comment through July 22 on the proposed Coast Guard policy by submitting written comments or speaking at a public meeting. Public meetings are scheduled for July 15 in Duluth, Minnesota, and July 17 in Cleveland, Ohio.

Background:

When ships on the Great Lakes dump waste material into the water, it is called “cargo sweeping” or “dry cargo discharge.” The actual quantity of waste material dumped into the lakes in a single shipping season is astounding. In 2004-2005, U.S.-flag carriers dumped more than 653,000 pounds of iron ore, 219,000 pounds of coal, 228,000 pounds of limestone and 11,300 pounds of other material into the Great Lakes.

Many of the cargo residues — especially iron ore and taconite — contain mercury and other toxic metals that can harm natural habitats in the lakebeds, as well as people who eat fish contaminated by the metals. Environmental effects of cargo sweeping are largely unknown.

Clear laws exist on both the international and domestic levels that prohibit the dumping of garbage in any of the internal waterways of the United States. The International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (MARPOL) is the primary international treaty covering the discharge of pollutants into the ocean. The United States is signatory to MARPOL, which articulates that garbage is not to be dumped within 12 nautical miles off the oceanic coast and therefore does not allow dumping in the Great Lakes. To implement MARPOL Congress passed the Act to Prevent Pollution from Ships (APPS) in 1987. Under both MARPOL and APPS operational wastes (ie: cargo residues) fall under the definition of garbage.

The Coast Guard’s draft interim enforcement policy required under APPS, in place since 1997, has allowed ships to “sweep” cargo residues that litter vessel decks off the side of the ship and into the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence River Basin. Congress recently ordered the Coast Guard to examine cargo sweeping and its effects and the Coast Guard has now proposed a rulemaking on the practice.

The Coast Guard’s proposed rule is illegal, because dry cargo residues fall under the description of garbage in domestic and international law and are thus prohibited to be dumped into inland waters. The Coast Guard should be developing rules that set standards and deadlines to virtually eliminate dry cargo dumping to protect the Great Lakes- St. Lawrence River ecosystem and comply with the law!

Take Action: Comment to the Coast Guard in writing or at one of the two public meetings

Make your comments at the public meetings, or submit them in writing by July 22nd. The Coast Guard’s Notice of Proposed Rulemaking can be viewed, and comments can be submitted, online here.

Other means of submission include:

Fax: 202-493-2251.

Mail: Docket Management Facility (M-30), U.S. Department of Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590- 0001.

Refer to Docket No. USCG-2004-19621 on your submission.

Duluth, Minn. Cleveland, Ohio

July 15, 1 p.m.-5 p.m. July 17, 1 p.m.-5 p.m.

Holiday Inn The Forum Conference Center

200 W. 1st St. 1375 E. 9th St.

Duluth, Minn. Cleveland, Ohio

Phone: 218-727-7492 Phone: 216-241-6338

For more information:

The Coast Guard’s draft EIS can be found here, go down to the bottom of the page to find the draft EIS and its 20 appendices.

Read Great Lakes United’s 2006 comments to the Coast Guard when they were preparing the EIS here

Please feel free to contact:

Alliance for the Great Lakes: Lyman Welch, 312-939-0838 ext. 230 or lwelch@greatlakes.org

Great Lakes United: Jennifer Nalbone, 716-213-0408 or jen@glu.org

Mark Mattson, Lake Ontario Waterkeeper, 416-861-1237

National Wildlife Federation: Michael Murray, 734-887-7110 or murray@nwf.org

Letter from YDWP Explaining Flaws in Alger Delta / Kennecott Plan

Posted on by

July 10, 2008

Mr. Tom Harrell
Alger Delta Cooperative Electric Association
426 N. 9th St.
Gladstone, MI 49837

RE: Kennecott Eagle Minerals Company Electric Service

Dear Mr. Harrell,

As we discussed at our meeting with the Marquette County Road Commission and other interested parties, it is important for Alger Delta to recognize the legal issues regarding the upgrade of existing service along CR 550 and the extension of existing services with the installation of new service along CR 510 and CR AAA to the Kennecott Eagle Mineral Company (KEMC) proposed mine site on the Yellow Dog Plains. As we discussed, the following of Non-Ferrous Metallic Mine permit statute (commonly known as Part 632) pertain to this project:

R 425.103(a) the definition of ‘mining activity’ includes (iv) Beneficiation; (x) Construction of haul roads; and (xi) Construction of utilities or extension of existing utilities.
R4 25.202 Environmental Impact Assessment shall be required for: (q) Existing and proposed infrastructure and utilities
R 425.204 Reclamation Plan (iii) ‘all . . .infrastructure . . . constructed as a result of the mining activities shall be removed, unless they are converted to an alternate use in accordance with the proposed final land use.’
Kennecott is currently not permitted to do any work related to the project since the permits are not final due to:

1. Ongoing Contested Case proceedings with the State of Michigan regarding the mining permit,
the air permit and the ground water discharge permit
2. The unmet requirement for KEMC to obtain an Underground Injection Control permit from the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
3. The lease from the State of Michigan allowing KEMC to use state land for this proposed
operation is not finalized

It is the opinion of our organization and of our attorneys, that Kennecott’s current mining application and the subsequent permit issued, do not permit for the work Kennecott has contracted with Alger Delta in the extension of power to the proposed mine site. The current mining permit stipulates the use of diesel generators at the site, not electrical service provided by a utility. Subsequently, KEMC has not submitted an amendment request to the DEQ changing the existing permit as required by the statute and rules of the Non-Ferrous Metallic Mine permit process (commonly known as Part 632). Under these rules the following language applies as taken directly from the Part 632 rules:

R 425.206 Amendment of permits.

Rule 206. (1) A mining permit may be amended at any time to address changes in the mining operation, natural or humanmade conditions, or technology, or to correct an oversight. An application for amendment of a mining permit shall be submitted on a form prescribed by the department, signed by the permittee or an authorized representative of the permittee. The application shall include revisions of any of the following that are affected by the changes:

(a) The environmental impact assessment.
(b) The mining, reclamation, and environmental protection plan.
(c) The contingency plan.
(d) Federal, state, and local permits and licenses that are anticipated to be required.
(e) Provisions for financial assurance required under R 425.301.
(f) Other terms and conditions of the mining permit.
(2) A permittee may submit a request to the department to amend a mining permit.
(3) The department may require a permittee to submit an application for amendment of a mining permit if the department determines that the terms and conditions of the mining permit are not providing the intended reasonable protection of the environment, natural resources, or public health and safety.
(4) Within 30 days after receiving a request to amend a mining permit, the department shall determine whether the request constitutes a significant change from the conditions of the approved mining permit. If the department determines that the request is a significant change, then the department shall submit the request for amendment to the same review process as provided for a new permit application in R 425.211(4).

Under this rule, an amendment to the current permit is necessary in order for the work Alger Delta plans to be legal under Part 632. It is our opinion that Alger Delta would be working as an agent to KEMC and therefore, may be responsible for violations of this law.

At this time, we urge Alger Delta to rethink their planned work to the upgrade and extension of services for Kennecott Minerals until the following conditions are met: 1) the mining permit is final, (2) the conditions of the state lease are met allowing KEMC to begin working on the mine and (3) Kennecott addresses the necessity of amending their mining permit. Until these conditions are all accomplished, any work performed by Alger Delta to extend existing service or to install new service on CR 550, CR 510 and the CR AAA roads to service Kennecott Minerals – will be in direct violation of the Part 632 statute and rules.

If you would like to discuss further, please contact me at 906 360-2414.

Sincerely,

Cynthia Pryor
Executive Director
Yellow Dog Watershed Preserve, Inc
P.O. Box 5, Big Bay, MI 49808

cc: Mr. Jon Cherry – Kennecott Eagle Minerals Company
Mr. Stephen Chester – MI Department of Environmental Quality
Ms. Rebecca Humphries – MI Department of Natural Resources
Ms. Michelle Halley – National Wildlife Federation
Ms. Susan LaFernier – Keweenaw Bay Indian Community
Mr. Peter Dykema – Huron Mountain Club

NRC Meeting, Munising

Posted on by

Nearly 50 people spoke during a roughly three-hour public comment session during Thursday’s NRC meeting.

Numerous topics were addressed by the speakers ranging from tribal fishing in Munising Bay, pheasant hunting daily start times, sulfide mining on the Yellow Dog Plains and user fees for cross-country ski trails to bear licenses, opposition and advocacy of the state’s new buck proposal for the U.P., the Huron River Watershed and a proposed theme park for downstate’s Crawford County.

The NRC typically holds one meeting each year in the Upper Peninsula.

Read More About It